Yeah I wasn't blaiming them, but their influence is too strong on the people today. So if you have some commentator saying things like 'best tennis ever, amazing tennis' etc everytime they see 30+rallies and finally finish the point off, the people will insta agree, because after all they are the ones who know their job But seriously, they don't.They just don't realize for example that 'simple' chip and charge won point is much more amazing and much more difficult to produce.

Back to the topic. 3 or 5 sets. Hmmm. I don't know I might be with you on this one. As much as I can't believe I'd ever consider changing slams to best of 3, maybe it is the the way to go if the conditions keep on harming the sport and injuring the players.But I dunno, best of 5 is tradition I like

edit: so you really believe the majority of fans like long defensive matches? But what about old school fans? They went into hiding?

So true! I quoted Brad Gilbert earlier. He and Pam Shriver were talking about a record number of 30 ball rallies and how this sets up to be the greatest match ever. Salesmen all, and you have to sell the product you're given. Couldn't agree more with you about the selling of the sport.

I'd feel safer with old school fans than kids. We're not going anywhere. Kids have ADD. Their favorite player loses 12 matches in a year instead of 6 and they're gone.

I don't know what match you're referring to, but the thing is that 30+ shot rallies in a match like Simon/Monfils are completely different that 30+ shot rallies in a match like Nole/Rafa. Not all long rallies are long because of pushers. Nole and Rafa, when they play each other, usually have tons of long rallies that are long because both of them refuse to give up the point, and they just keep pulling out amazing shots. For example:

(video below)

(Ignore the title, I don't agree that it's the best point in history) This rally is 31 shots, but it's not two people just hitting back and forth. It's Nadal playing ridiculous defense and Nole pounding down amazing shots one after the other. Or the first point here:

It's a long rally as well, but they aren't just blocking it back and forth. They're both making great shots.

It hardly seems worth the effort.It really isn't perception. It's fact.I've timed The Stall Masters and their epic matches.The results are disgusting.Despite many points turning into lengthy rallies, they're only 'playing' tennis 35% of the time as compared to players who abide by the time rules who are closer to 55%. That's why I maintain that the record books should show that any title won by a Staller should have an asterisk or two beside it for cheating.We won't even get into the coaching from the box......

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

It hardly seems worth the effort.It really isn't perception. It's fact.I've timed The Stall Masters and their epic matches.The results are disgusting.Despite many points turning into lengthy rallies, they're only 'playing' tennis 35% of the time as compared to players who abide by the time rules who are closer to 55%. That's why I maintain that the record books should show that any title won by a Staller should have an asterisk or two beside it for cheating.We won't even get into the coaching from the box......

You may now return to your bubble.

MT, don't you understand they have to wipe their faces 'every second'. very often they just 'touch' their faces with freaking towels. If you watch some older matches, players didn't used to do that. Take away towels and see what happens. Nole and Rafa probably wouldn't be able to play at all

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

Alex, it's not about homogenization of the surfaces causing the matches to take too much time. It's the complete loss of variety in the game. It's the loss of serve/volley from the game almost completely.But you are right in a way. Murray and Djokovic are so evenly matched, and play such a simlar style, their matches almost always take hours of work.I actually like marathon matches.... once in a while. Not the majority of the time two of the top four play each other. When they do it's almost a given it will take 4 hours at least.But still, it's not the length of matches as much as it's the loss of variety in the game. That's what bugs me the most about the homogenization of surfaces.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

Alex, it's not about homogenization of the surfaces causing the matches to take too much time. It's the complete loss of variety in the game. It's the loss of serve/volley from the game almost completely.But you are right in a way. Murray and Djokovic are so evenly matched, and play such a simlar style, their matches almost always take hours of work.I actually like marathon matches.... once in a while. Not the majority of the time two of the top four play each other. When they do it's almost a given it will take 4 hours at least.But still, it's not the length of matches as much as it's the loss of variety in the game. That's what bugs me the most about the homogenization of surfaces.

Dmas, you and i posted the same thing it's just that mine mind is all over atm. I still think it's a combination of all surfaces being slowed down and all players (except Llodra and Sexy Stepanek ) being baseliners. IMHO, only Fed and Haas, being from that 'older generation' can give you that 'variety' nowadays.

But, that is the way they get trained nowadays. I don't know. Seeing long rallies when there is some point construction involved but didn't work out is fun, but if 2 guys just keep hitting the ball over the net and hoping for UE it's so freaking boring.

As a Nole fan I prefer his game from 2007/08 because he was so aggressive. My question to you is what changed? How come he became #1 by sort of doing that 'defend, defend, defend and then hit a winner'. the thing is, very often it takes forever.

Same with Murray. I followed really closely Murray/Nole back in 2006. Murray played a completely different game. and then he goes into this 'run, run, run, defend, defend, defend' and hope for the best.

Dmas, you and i posted the same thing it's just that mine mind is all over atm. I still think it's a combination of all surfaces being slowed down and all players (except Llodra and Sexy Stepanek ) being baseliners. IMHO, only Fed and Haas, being from that 'older generation' can give you that 'variety' nowadays.

But, that is the way they get trained nowadays. I don't know. Seeing long rallies when there is some point construction involved but didn't work out is fun, but if 2 guys just keep hitting the ball over the net and hoping for UE it's so freaking boring.

As a Nole fan I prefer his game from 2007/08 because he was so aggressive. My question to you is what changed? How come he became #1 by sort of doing that 'defend, defend, defend and then hit a winner'. the thing is, very often it takes forever.

Same with Murray. I followed really closely Murray/Nole back in 2006. Murray played a completely different game. and then he goes into this 'run, run, run, defend, defend, defend' and hope for the best.

It's not necessarily defend-defend-defend, it's more play the percentages. Don't go for a winner unless you have a very good percentage at making the shot-not winning the point-but making the shot. If you make the shot and it's not a winner, then reset and keep playing until you can hit a winner, or make your opponent miss.I look at it in terms of engineering, where you don't want to be at the limits of a piece of equipment. You want to be in the sweet spot of that equipment if at all possible.So, Djokovic, Murray & Nadal all stay within the sweet spots of their shots. They don't take chances. They just keep playing until they can get an advantage. When they can, they try and win the point, but don't try to hit as close to the lines or as crazy a shot as other players. They are fit enough to just keep playing the percentages until they can win more points than their opponents.Due to all of this, coaches just don't teach serve/volley tennis anymore. The volley has become like the overhead, just practiced for a few minutes at the end of a practice session, and there's very little talk of how to move at the net (in case a volley gets returned).This is possible because of the spin possibilities of the equipment, and the slowing down of the courts in general. So it is all equally culpable. In the end it has made for a very bland brand of tennis. Very little forays into the net, even on grass, where it was the way you used to play tennis on grass. Even in Newport, where the grass is still the same as it used to be in Wimbledon. There is much more net rushing at Newport than anywhere else, but not as much as in the past. Players aren't comfortable at the net even on a surface where getting the net is an advantage, like Newport. In fact, I've played on the Newport courts. Not only is the bounce incredibly low, it's incredibly inconsistent. So there is even more incentive to get to the net, but no, players just get to the net to finish off rallies, to put away volleys.

Logged

Is a tree as a rocking horseAn ambition fulfilledAnd is the sawdust jealous?I worry about these things .Kevin Godley & Lol Crème (I Pity Inanimate Objects)

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

Alex, it's not about homogenization of the surfaces causing the matches to take too much time. It's the complete loss of variety in the game. It's the loss of serve/volley from the game almost completely.But you are right in a way. Murray and Djokovic are so evenly matched, and play such a simlar style, their matches almost always take hours of work.I actually like marathon matches.... once in a while. Not the majority of the time two of the top four play each other. When they do it's almost a given it will take 4 hours at least.But still, it's not the length of matches as much as it's the loss of variety in the game. That's what bugs me the most about the homogenization of surfaces.

Dmas, you and i posted the same thing it's just that mine mind is all over atm. I still think it's a combination of all surfaces being slowed down and all players (except Llodra and Sexy Stepanek ) being baseliners. IMHO, only Fed and Haas, being from that 'older generation' can give you that 'variety' nowadays.

But, that is the way they get trained nowadays. I don't know. Seeing long rallies when there is some point construction involved but didn't work out is fun, but if 2 guys just keep hitting the ball over the net and hoping for UE it's so freaking boring.

As a Nole fan I prefer his game from 2007/08 because he was so aggressive. My question to you is what changed? How come he became #1 by sort of doing that 'defend, defend, defend and then hit a winner'. the thing is, very often it takes forever.

Same with Murray. I followed really closely Murray/Nole back in 2006. Murray played a completely different game. and then he goes into this 'run, run, run, defend, defend, defend' and hope for the best.

It's not necessarily defend-defend-defend, it's more play the percentages. Don't go for a winner unless you have a very good percentage at making the shot-not winning the point-but making the shot. If you make the shot and it's not a winner, then reset and keep playing until you can hit a winner, or make your opponent miss.I look at it in terms of engineering, where you don't want to be at the limits of a piece of equipment. You want to be in the sweet spot of that equipment if at all possible.So, Djokovic, Murray & Nadal all stay within the sweet spots of their shots. They don't take chances. They just keep playing until they can get an advantage. When they can, they try and win the point, but don't try to hit as close to the lines or as crazy a shot as other players. They are fit enough to just keep playing the percentages until they can win more points than their opponents.Due to all of this, coaches just don't teach serve/volley tennis anymore. The volley has become like the overhead, just practiced for a few minutes at the end of a practice session, and there's very little talk of how to move at the net (in case a volley gets returned).This is possible because of the spin possibilities of the equipment, and the slowing down of the courts in general. So it is all equally culpable. In the end it has made for a very bland brand of tennis. Very little forays into the net, even on grass, where it was the way you used to play tennis on grass. Even in Newport, where the grass is still the same as it used to be in Wimbledon. There is much more net rushing at Newport than anywhere else, but not as much as in the past. Players aren't comfortable at the net even on a surface where getting the net is an advantage, like Newport. In fact, I've played on the Newport courts. Not only is the bounce incredibly low, it's incredibly inconsistent. So there is even more incentive to get to the net, but no, players just get to the net to finish off rallies, to put away volleys.

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

Alex, it's not about homogenization of the surfaces causing the matches to take too much time. It's the complete loss of variety in the game. It's the loss of serve/volley from the game almost completely.But you are right in a way. Murray and Djokovic are so evenly matched, and play such a simlar style, their matches almost always take hours of work.I actually like marathon matches.... once in a while. Not the majority of the time two of the top four play each other. When they do it's almost a given it will take 4 hours at least.But still, it's not the length of matches as much as it's the loss of variety in the game. That's what bugs me the most about the homogenization of surfaces.

Dmas, you and i posted the same thing it's just that mine mind is all over atm. I still think it's a combination of all surfaces being slowed down and all players (except Llodra and Sexy Stepanek ) being baseliners. IMHO, only Fed and Haas, being from that 'older generation' can give you that 'variety' nowadays.

But, that is the way they get trained nowadays. I don't know. Seeing long rallies when there is some point construction involved but didn't work out is fun, but if 2 guys just keep hitting the ball over the net and hoping for UE it's so freaking boring.

As a Nole fan I prefer his game from 2007/08 because he was so aggressive. My question to you is what changed? How come he became #1 by sort of doing that 'defend, defend, defend and then hit a winner'. the thing is, very often it takes forever.

Same with Murray. I followed really closely Murray/Nole back in 2006. Murray played a completely different game. and then he goes into this 'run, run, run, defend, defend, defend' and hope for the best.

It's not necessarily defend-defend-defend, it's more play the percentages. Don't go for a winner unless you have a very good percentage at making the shot-not winning the point-but making the shot. If you make the shot and it's not a winner, then reset and keep playing until you can hit a winner, or make your opponent miss.I look at it in terms of engineering, where you don't want to be at the limits of a piece of equipment. You want to be in the sweet spot of that equipment if at all possible.So, Djokovic, Murray & Nadal all stay within the sweet spots of their shots. They don't take chances. They just keep playing until they can get an advantage. When they can, they try and win the point, but don't try to hit as close to the lines or as crazy a shot as other players. They are fit enough to just keep playing the percentages until they can win more points than their opponents.Due to all of this, coaches just don't teach serve/volley tennis anymore. The volley has become like the overhead, just practiced for a few minutes at the end of a practice session, and there's very little talk of how to move at the net (in case a volley gets returned).This is possible because of the spin possibilities of the equipment, and the slowing down of the courts in general. So it is all equally culpable. In the end it has made for a very bland brand of tennis. Very little forays into the net, even on grass, where it was the way you used to play tennis on grass. Even in Newport, where the grass is still the same as it used to be in Wimbledon. There is much more net rushing at Newport than anywhere else, but not as much as in the past. Players aren't comfortable at the net even on a surface where getting the net is an advantage, like Newport. In fact, I've played on the Newport courts. Not only is the bounce incredibly low, it's incredibly inconsistent. So there is even more incentive to get to the net, but no, players just get to the net to finish off rallies, to put away volleys.

I bolded that because it's a result of the surface homogenization. Players don't anymore have the skills that were needed on old-school grass. Making surfaces more different again wouldn't bring instantly variety to the game. Players would need to develop their games to have more variety. But with more different surfaces, they'd have incentive for that.

Really nice thread!! I actually concur with Babs on everything and the LOOOONG post by DMAS is right on the money!!

Anyway, I will say it again.. I am tired of 6 hour matches and I am sick and tired of the survival of the fittest when the "fittest" takes almost a minute to serve... That's a joke! Anyway, just waiting on UFEs is the way to go nowadays and I really despise it... Bring variety, bring surfaces back to its original standards and bring back the agressiveness to tennis and I'm happy...

Sadly it's not going to happen. There are TOOOOO many sheep around (including former pro players) trying to sell the new "era" of tennis and sheep believing this is the most amazing era to be around tennis!! Just sad!!!

Really nice thread!! I actually concur with Babs on everything and the LOOOONG post by DMAS is right on the money!!

Anyway, I will say it again.. I am tired of 6 hour matches and I am sick and tired of the survival of the fittest when the "fittest" takes almost a minute to serve... That's a joke! Anyway, just waiting on UFEs is the way to go nowadays and I really despise it... Bring variety, bring surfaces back to its original standards and bring back the agressiveness to tennis and I'm happy...

Sadly it's not going to happen. There are TOOOOO many sheep around (including former pro players) trying to sell the new "era" of tennis and sheep believing this is the most amazing era to be around tennis!! Just sad!!!

Mav, I agree with you but what to do? Nole/Fed, just a regular good match. Nole/Rafa, interesting but it takes forever. Nole/Murray, boring and God help us out. All Rafa matches take forever. he has to do this and that ... how long does it take before he serves? Djokovic was bad with his ball bouncing routing too but he changed.

Well, TBH there is nothing we can do... Unfortunately from old school fans there are quite a few that dig this type of play. So you got young kids loving this "era", you got SOME old school tennis liking it somewhat, you got ex-pro players trying to sell the product because that's why they pay them for and then you got a minority (US) who despise how the game is played today... I will still watch tennis everytime I can, but for heaven sake Murray/Djokovic has to be the most boring rivalry in the sport!!

A part from that, one of the things that annoys me the most is the time between serves many players take... It is not only Nadal now... But he gets me on my nerves everytime I see him play to be honest!! I think it was 7 months ago when I was watching him and it took him 56 SECONDS to serve after a 32 long rally!!! 56 SECONDS!!!!!!!!! And they allowed him to do that!!!! Where do you draw the line??

ah, here we go again. it's more about homogenization of surfaces. you think players like Nole/Rafa or anyone love to play 6 hours matches? doubt it. it it the organizers and the ATP. players adapted ... the survival of the fittest.

I personally don't mind long matches once in a while especially at majors. It could be so much fun. There are certain match ups that I don't like (Nole/Murray is the worst one). Give me Nole/Fed and I can watch for hours. It all depends. Nole/Rafa is usually good too.

I still prefer tennis nowadays then back in 80s. we do need more variety. the only way to change it is to speed up some courts. top guys would be still winning but you'd get shorter matches, shorter rallies, more winners.

people were getting bored when guys were serving aces like crazy, S&V, boom, boom, 2,3 points, done game. you can't have it both ways.

Alex, it's not about homogenization of the surfaces causing the matches to take too much time. It's the complete loss of variety in the game. It's the loss of serve/volley from the game almost completely.But you are right in a way. Murray and Djokovic are so evenly matched, and play such a simlar style, their matches almost always take hours of work.I actually like marathon matches.... once in a while. Not the majority of the time two of the top four play each other. When they do it's almost a given it will take 4 hours at least.But still, it's not the length of matches as much as it's the loss of variety in the game. That's what bugs me the most about the homogenization of surfaces.

It's good to see you around again Dmast! Been too long!

It's good to see you around again Scooter! Ben Two Longh!

I am so busy it is crazy, all good stuff though. Just moved to a new house last week. Hired someone new last week too, that's a 5 person firm now, plus wifey who is 20+ hours a week. Crazy busy!!!

Really nice thread!! I actually concur with Babs on everything and the LOOOONG post by DMAS is right on the money!!

Anyway, I will say it again.. I am tired of 6 hour matches and I am sick and tired of the survival of the fittest when the "fittest" takes almost a minute to serve... That's a joke! Anyway, just waiting on UFEs is the way to go nowadays and I really despise it... Bring variety, bring surfaces back to its original standards and bring back the agressiveness to tennis and I'm happy...

Sadly it's not going to happen. There are TOOOOO many sheep around (including former pro players) trying to sell the new "era" of tennis and sheep believing this is the most amazing era to be around tennis!! Just sad!!!

Mav, I agree with you but what to do? Nole/Fed, just a regular good match. Nole/Rafa, interesting but it takes forever. Nole/Murray, boring and God help us out. All Rafa matches take forever. he has to do this and that ... how long does it take before he serves? Djokovic was bad with his ball bouncing routing too but he changed.

Murray does not have a bouncing routing like Djokovic,ah it's Djokovic falt,good point Alex.